Press Release: NRA Sells Out Free Speech
Christine Hall, 202-331-2258
Julie Walsh, 202-331-2777NRA Sells Out Free Speech Rights For Special Favor
NRA Blasted Carve-Outs, Now Accepts Carve-Out Just For NRA
Washington, D.C., June 15, 2010 – Freedom Action today criticized the National Rifle
Association for dropping its opposition to the DISCLOSE Act after being given a
special exemption by the House Democratic leadership that would apply only to
the NRA.
The DISCLOSE Act is designed to undo key parts of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court ruled that provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation that prohibited corporations, including non-profit 501(c)(4)s such as the NRA and Freedom Action, from exercising their first amendment free speech rights in political campaigns were unconstitutional. The DISCLOSE Act would require advocacy groups engaged in election-related activities, but not trade unions, to disclose their donors in a number of ways.
Under the deal the NRA made with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the NRA would
now, along with trade unions, be exempt from the disclosure requirements. In return, the NRA has agreed not to oppose passage of the bill.
The NRA’s special deal for itself directly contradicts the statement made by NRA
Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre hailing the Supreme Court’s decision in
the Citizens United case. We have added corrections in brackets to Mr. LaPierre’s statement:
This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and
every one of us [as long as he or she is a member of the NRA]. The majesty of free speech is that any American [as long as he or she is a member of the NRA] can roll out of bed and speak as freely as The New York Times, NBC or politicians. This is a defeat for arrogant elitists [except for the NRA] who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves [as the NRA has done in our special deal with Speaker Pelosi] and deny it to the rest of us [as the NRA wants to deny it to everyone who isn’t a member of NRA]; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom. Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American [who is a member of the NRA] and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard [as long as they are members of the NRA].” (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5324)
Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action, sharply criticized the NRA’s sell-out.
“The NRA has proved itself to be part of the ‘arrogant elite’ it denounced just a few months ago,” said Ebell. “Unfortunately, the only conclusion is that Mr. LaPierre is a hypocrite and the NRA is just another powerful special interest seeking special treatment.
“The new word from the NRA is, it’s OK to deny free speech to Americans as long as the NRA gets a carve out,” Ebell said. “Groups from every part of the political spectrum should vehemently oppose this plan that will chill free speech and participation in American elections.”
Freedom Action is a web-based grassroots activist group dedicated to more freedom and less
government. FreedomAction.org
Comment
-
Comment by Bloomie Johnson on June 16, 2010 at 6:20pm -
Some one care to simplify this for me? I'm confused about the Disclosure Act.
Here's the article
McGehee: Even With NRA Fix, DISCLOSE Act Worth Voting For
By Meredith McGehee
Special to Roll Call
June 16, 2010, 4:58 p.m.
An army of influential Washington, D.C., players is busy working the phones and making the rounds on Capitol Hill this week trying to scuttle the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175). Some groups, seeing that the National Rifle Association was successful in obtaining a carve-out, are seeking their own deals, while others are using the controversy around the “NRA fix” as a cover for their own opposition to the underlying goals of the bill.
The question now facing Members of the House is whether the DISCLOSE Act is worth voting for now that the NRA fix has been added.
The answer is yes. Here’s why.
The DISCLOSE Act was drafted in response to the recent radical decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, which turned a century of law on its head and allows corporations (and unions) to spend unlimited treasury funds to directly influence the outcome of federal elections.
The DISCLOSE bill responds to this startling and unfortunate decision by requiring corporations and unions that make these expenditures to disclose those expenditures in a meaningful and accurate fashion. It also ensures that the gap created by the Citizens United decision in the ban on foreign nationals from influencing U.S. elections is closed; it strengthens current rules (which are notoriously weak) governing coordination of activities with candidates and parties; and it enhances public disclosure of political expenditures made by corporations, unions, 527 organizations and 501(c) groups, especially transfers made to third-party organizations that, without these new provisions, would remain hidden from public disclosure.
These are all worthy and important changes to current statutes that the Citizens United decision has necessitated. The Campaign Legal Center supports these changes and believes the bill with the manager’s amendment is of vital importance to the health of our democracy.
Those claiming the bill has a “union exemption” are wrong. Unions have the same donor disclosure requirements as everyone else — including a threshold, so that only major donors are disclosed. They also are covered by the same disclaimer and “stand by your ad” provisions as everyone else. And, like all other government contractors, they are prohibited from making campaign expenditures if they receive funding from the government for services they provide to the government. They are not covered if their only role is to negotiate labor contracts with the government on behalf of their members, because serving as a negotiator for members has never been covered under the existing government contractor prohibition, which the DISCLOSE Act builds on.
As for the recently negotiated NRA fix, there are two points to consider.
One is that this exception is quite narrow. Thus, it does not become the loophole that swallows the law. Rather, in the case of the NRA, it is a long-established, nationwide group with a huge membership base that doesn’t serve as a conduit for corporate funding and is a well-known “brand.” When the NRA takes out an ad, we know what the organization is and what it stands for.
The second is pure necessity. According to the House leadership’s vote count, the fix was needed to ensure passage in the House. The NRA is just that powerful within the House and especially among the Blue Dog Democrats. Like it or not, that’s the reality.
The core provisions of the DISCLOSE Act are important enough to get this bill through the House and on to the Senate expeditiously where we hope it will pass this summer. Without the core provisions of the DISCLOSE Act in place, this fall the public will remain in the dark about millions of dollars being spent to determine who will lead this nation. And it will only get worse in 2012 when the occupancy of the White House is in play.
The DISCLOSE Act, even with the fix, is being mischaracterized by opponents. At its core, it is about ensuring that voters know who or what is behind the high-priced ad campaigns attacking or praising the candidates whose names will be on the ballot.
It’s time for the House to pass H.R. 5175 with the manager’s amendment. Further delay only serves to empower those who wish to conceal their big, influence-buying checks and political clout behind the political ads run by organizations with patriotic names and ulterior motives.
© 2012 Created by Freedom Action.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Freedom Action Network to add comments!
Join Freedom Action Network